Why Do Rotaries Suck?

[GT-R32]

In fact I do and I am a fair way up the food chain, but that's not the question at hand.

LOL cute.

Hang on, you're the one who said times 2, when it's in fact times 1.8. So I'm hardly the one who is wrong here.

Your attempt at discrediting by ignoring everything I previously typed is weak. Rightio then, how did they get to x1.8? Care to explain? I'm sure people would love to hear it from you.

You lost me again, to me a 13B sounds lik a 6 cylinder 2 stroke at 3,000 rpm. A 20B sounds like a 9 cylinder 2 stoke at 2,750 rpm as most 20B's are limited to around that maximum rotor rpm due issues to with the standard 2 piece eccentric shaft. That's fixable as there are reasonably well engineered 1 piece eccentric shafts available. Although I haven't tested one to 3,000 rpm yet, that's rotor rpm of course. Because it's the rotors that are relevant here, as it's their loading and rpm that causes the failure of the eccentric shaft.

Hahaha!

Listen to the straight 6 two stroke:

Now listen to the 20B, both are comparable revs:

Sounds similar, don't they? That's because of the way they fire. Something which it appears you don't understand.

Now listen to the 13B which you think sounds like the 1st video:

I'm not the one who is limited here, I have a completely open mind when it comes to cars. But I know what I know and I'm sorry if you consider my passing on of that knowlegde to be self proclamation. I actually feel quite justified in my stance, plus I would add that some people now know some more about rotaries than they did before and that's not a bad thing.

Cheers

Gary

So do I. It's not the passing on knowledge (I'll ignore the knowledge that's wrong). It's the failure to accept some relatives or even how they are derived, let alone understanding Mazda and Dr Wankel's reasoning for rating the engine the way they do. I agree that the 13B is a 3.9L engine, but a Wankel cycle engine. It's nothing like a 3.9L 6 cylinder 2 stroke as you imply. This demonstrates that further than counting combustion surfaces @ 654cc x 6 and realising the rotor revolutions, you don't understand how the engine operates.

[jame88]

Hey guys,

Sorry to pop up here and argue in my first post on this forum, ill try to be as nice as i can. I've read through this whole thread, and it seems in the last 26 pages, not too many of you seem to know exactly whats going on with a Wankel and i thought id better clear up a few things, so people dont start believing incorrect information like what Sydneykid has said.

Seeing as Sidneykid has basically said the same thing over and over again, ill just correct what was said in his first post.

Lie #1, they are a 4 stroke engine, rubbish they are a 2 stroke. Every one knows it, but Mazda lied because they didn't want the "lawn mower syndrome" attached to rotaries. The fact remains they are really a 2 stroke. The fact that they need oil in the petrol is just another nail in the 2 stroke coffin.

While it's hard to compare a Wankel engine's cycle to that of any sort of piston engine, i can't see too many similarities to a 2-stroke cycle, but i can see plenty of similarities to a 4-stroke engine.

In its cycle, it intakes, compresses, ignites, and exhausts, thats four by my count. I can't really find any similarity to a 2-stroke engine, could you please point them out. Also most lawnmowers are 4-stroke engines.

Lie #2, they rev to 9,000 rpm. no they don't. The rotors only do 3,000 rpm they use a step up gear ratio to spin the eccentric shaft at 3 times the rotor rpm. Why? So they could use normal piston engine gearbox and diff ratios. They could have easily used say 6 to 1 rotor to shaft ratios, then claimed 18,000 rpm. The rotors would still only be doing 3,000 rpm, their true rpm.

Now this one you seem to really not understand. In a Wankel revving at 9000rpm, the rotors are rotating around the eccentric shaft at 9000rpm and around their own center at 3000rpm. By your reasoning, the pistons in a piston engine are really doing 0rpm. Also i don't know where you dreamed up this 3:1 ratio between the eccentric shaft and rotors, the only gearsets in a Wankel are the ring gear on the rotor and the fixed gear on the housing. This is a 3:1 ratio and keeps the rotor rotating about its center at one third of the engine rpm, and is essential to make the rotor move in the Wankel cycle, but it does not step up the speed of the rotor to the eccentric shaft.

A Wankel could not use any other ratio but 3:1, or else the rotor would not move in the Wankel cycle.

The angular speed of the rotors around the eccentric shaft is the only speed that matters, The angular speed of the rotors around their center being a third of the engine speed is just a part of the Wankel cycle, just as the speed of a camshaft of a piston engine is half that of the crankshaft and should not be an indicator of the engine speed.

Lie #3, the biggest lie, the small engine capacity eg; a 13B is 1.3 litres. What a whopper of lie that was. Their true capacity is 3.9 litres, 2 x 3 sided rotors x .66 litre each side = 3.9 litres. Everyone knows it, but Mazda persisted with the lie.

Why? In one cycle of a 2000cc 4-stroke engine, the engine "pumps" 2L of air, in one cycle of a 1000cc 2-stroke engine, the engine "pumps" 1L of air, and in one cycle of a 13b Wankel, the engine "pumps" 1.3L of air. I don't see any problems with that.

As with most things, the lies came back to bight Mazda. They use a lot of petrol for a 1.3L 4 stroke. But not so much for a 3.9 litre 2 stroke. They take a big turbo for a 1.3L 4 stroke, it's not so big when the truth is 3.9 litre 2 stroke. They produce an impressive amount horsepower per litre when using the lies of a 1.3L 4 stroke. But when the truth is used, it's a shit house power output for a 3.9 litre 2 stroke.

I can't really think of many 1.3L 4-stroke piston engine that put out the same power as a 13b. If you can, please tell me how much fuel they use, when they are driving a car of the same size/weight. I didn't know engine capacity was rated by what size turbo they take, perhaps it is due to the better design of a Wankel.

So put the lies away and look at rotaries in the true light of day. As a 3.9 litre 2 stroke (in the case of a 13B) they have OK horsepower output, but lousy torque output due to their poor combustion chamber shape. That's why they need 2 spark plugs. Another reason for their poor torque output is the compression ratio, which is very low, another result of that poor combustion chamber shape. Their fuel economy is OK for a 3.9 litre 2 stroke, but they don't use the fuel efficiently, hence poor power output per litre of fuel used. They respond well to turbocharging as you would expect from a 3.9 litre 2 stroke with a low compression ratio.

I don't see how they have "OK" power output when they are up there with the rb26dett stock, can make 1000hp+, have been made to run 7s 1/4 miles etc. I would suggest they use 2 spark plugs for pollution reasons, and also because it is far easier to fit more spark plugs in the combustion chamber of a Wankel than in a piston engine head.

I also don't understand how they have "lousy torque output". A stock 13B-REW has 314Nm (more than a rb26dett) and a 20B-REW has 402Nm, with an impressive 380Nm at just 1800rpm.

Also, if we were to go by your incorrect way of measuring the angular speed of a Wankel, then a 20B would be putting out 1140Nm at 600rpm, which i wouldn't call lousy.

They are either correctly a torquey, high revving engine or incorrectly a extremely torquey low revving engine.

Modified Mazda Wankels often do lack low-down torque because they have enlargened ports, which will increase high-revving speed with the compromise of low-end power, just like a piston engine. This also increases fuel comsumption (just as in a modified piston engine) due to the overlap in intake and exhaust ports being open, which is where Wankels got their reputation for chewing through fuel.

Most figures i've seen for the compression ratios for a Mazda Wankel are around 9-10, how is that low?

They respond well to turbocharging due to their free-flowing design, no valves to get in the way.

Add it all up and you find the truth is a pretty average engine, with only one advantage and that's small external size. But the fact is it's not user friendly size. They don't fit well in a front wheel drive application compared to a compact inline 4 cylinder. They don't offer much space saving in a rear wheel drive application as they need a radiator, oil cooler and gearbox big enough for a 3.9 litre 4 stroke. A compact 3.9 litre V6 doesn't need any bigger engine bay and yet produces more horsepower, more torque and gets better fuel economy.

I don't think this needs much explaining, i doubt anyone really cares if Wankels fit well into front wheel drives, they are a performance engine, they go in performance (rear wheel drive) cars. Of course they save space, they are smaller than piston engines and they need big gearboxes because they are powerful. If a compact V6 doesn't need any bigger engine bay fit one to a r100.

If Mazda has been lying to the world for the last 40 years then wouldn't someone intelligent person have picked it up and done something about it before you?

Well hopefully thats cleared things up for everyone, Sydneykid, if you need me to explain anything further or you would like to point out where you have actually said anything correct, just tell me.

[jame88]

To reply to the OP's question,

Wankels don't suck, they are powerful, small and simple.

The only reasons i can think of is that they once had sealing problems (pretty much fixed these days), and there arent as many around as piston engines.

[Parag0n]

I'm so glad I sold my GT-R and bought an FD Series 8.

It really is a fun car to drive, oh but you won't have ATTESSA to pull you out of those hairy situations, you actually have to drive the car.

Oh and you need to know how to change the oil regulary.

Apart from that rotary development is still ongoing, PAC recently broke the world record 6.7 @ 200mph+ in the quarter with even MAZDA issuing a press release.

http://www.mazda.com.au/About%20Mazda/News...%20Fastest.aspx

Ever notice the ANDRA PRO-TURBO class mostly consists of Rotarys and 2JZ's?

Where are the RB engines? They're not going to be in the 6's anytime soon, meanwhile Puerto Ricans get 13B's to run 6 second quarters.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Parag0n

[ylwgtr2]

I'm so glad I sold my GT-R and bought an FD Series 8.

It really is a fun car to drive, oh but you won't have ATTESSA to pull you out of those hairy situations, you actually have to drive the car.

Oh and you need to know how to change the oil regulary.

Apart from that rotary development is still ongoing, PAC recently broke the world record 6.7 @ 200mph+ in the quarter with even MAZDA issuing a press release.

http://www.mazda.com.au/About%20Mazda/News...%20Fastest.aspx

Ever notice the ANDRA PRO-TURBO class mostly consists of Rotarys and 2JZ's?

Where are the RB engines? They're not going to be in the 6's anytime soon, meanwhile Puerto Ricans get 13B's to run 6 second quarters.

Dont you know the world revolves around C.A.M.S? Bunch of wankers

Edited September 28, 2009 by ylwgtr2

[Jez13]

I'm not 100% convinced on this rotory only doing 3000rpm. I mean each rotor does 3 combustions per cylcle where as the piston only produces 1. So in total a 13b produces 6 combustions per cycle which is why it sounds like it is reving really high. I think revs maybe an incorrect way of comparing a piston to a rotor and cpm is more accurate. So i suppose it is the most similar to a 6 cylinder 4 stroke?

Edited September 28, 2009 by Jez13

[ylwgtr2]

Now this one you seem to really not understand. In a Wankel revving at 9000rpm, the rotors are rotating around the eccentric shaft at 9000rpm and around their own center at 3000rpm. By your reasoning, the pistons in a piston engine are really doing 0rpm. Also i don't know where you dreamed up this 3:1 ratio between the eccentric shaft and rotors, the only gearsets in a Wankel are the ring gear on the rotor and the fixed gear on the housing. This is a 3:1 ratio and keeps the rotor rotating about its center at one third of the engine rpm, and is essential to make the rotor move in the Wankel cycle, but it does not step up the speed of the rotor to the eccentric shaft.

A Wankel could not use any other ratio but 3:1, or else the rotor would not move in the Wankel cycle.

The angular speed of the rotors around the eccentric shaft is the only speed that matters, The angular speed of the rotors around their center being a third of the engine speed is just a part of the Wankel cycle, just as the speed of a camshaft of a piston engine is half that of the crankshaft and should not be an indicator of the engine speed.

I will get in first....im not having a go at you here and correct me if im wrong but what about the 13a engine?It has a different swing or "stroke" as you would call it in a piston engine

[Birds]

I also don't understand how they have "lousy torque output". A stock 13B-REW has 314Nm (more than a rb26dett) and a 20B-REW has 402Nm, with an impressive 380Nm at just 1800rpm.

Also, if we were to go by your incorrect way of measuring the angular speed of a Wankel, then a 20B would be putting out 1140Nm at 600rpm, which i wouldn't call lousy.

Had to call you up on this one...an RB26DETT has significantly more torque than 314NM.

[Sydneykid]

Oh my, another one, having beaten the others with truth and logic along comes another with selective understanding. This post is a prime example from someone who has a result that they want and then goes looking for evidence to support that result, whilst at the same time ignoring the vast majority of evidence that repudiates it.

Hey guys,

Sorry to pop up here and argue in my first post on this forum, ill try to be as nice as i can. I've read through this whole thread, and it seems in the last 26 pages, not too many of you seem to know exactly whats going on with a Wankel and i thought id better clear up a few things, so people dont start believing incorrect information like what Sydneykid has said.

Well let's see how incorrect I am.

Seeing as Sidneykid has basically said the same thing over and over again, ill just correct what was said in his first post.

That's because some people needed it explained in many different ways so they could gain an understanding of the truth.

While it's hard to compare a Wankel engine's cycle to that of any sort of piston engine, i can't see too many similarities to a 2-stroke cycle, but i can see plenty of similarities to a 4-stroke engine.

In its cycle, it intakes, compresses, ignites, and exhausts, thats four by my count. I can't really find any similarity to a 2-stroke engine, could you please point them out.

You ignore that a rotary inlets while it exhaust just like a 2 stroke. You only look at one side of the rotor in isolation because it would destroy your argument if you actually looked at what is happening in the engine during its full cycle ie; one complete cycle/orbit/rotation/revolution of the 2 rotors in the case of a 13B.

There is little doubt that it's a 2 stroke type of cycle, as posted, and it's a lot closer to a 2 stroke than a 4 stroke. Inletting while it's exhausting, fires every time the combustion chamber passes the spark plug etc etc.

Also most lawnmowers are 4-stroke engines.

Nope, check your facts, in the time that Mazda has been selling rotaries the sales of 2 stroke lawn mowers exceed 4 stroke lawn mowers by a factor of 10. More importantly, Mazdas marketing based lies started in the 70's when there were almost zero 4 stroke lawn mowers, every home had a Victa.

Now this one you seem to really not understand. In a Wankel revving at 9000rpm, the rotors are rotating around the eccentric shaft at 9000rpm and around their own center at 3000rpm.

That's complex mechanics for the average reader to understand, hence why its usually simplified down to a step up ratio of 3. It matters not, the fact remains the rotors are doing 3,000 rpm (revolutions per minute) or 3,000 opm (orbits per minute) or 3,000 cpm (cycles per minute). Choose whatever terminolgy you like, they all mean your view is incorrect.

By your reasoning, the pistons in a piston engine are really doing 0rpm.

But they are doing 9,000 cpm, (cycles per minute) or is that 9,000 spm (strokes per minute) when the crankshaft is doing 9,000 rpm.

The readers of this thread will at this point relate to the aforementioned rotary huggers' usual tricks of muddying up the water with pedantic narrow minded definitions. We all know it's a desperate attempt to prevent comparison, but it fails the common use English test. Keep that in mind as we move on.

To be continued......

Cheers

Gary

[scotty014]

Had to call you up on this one...an RB26DETT has significantly more torque than 314NM.

thats true, even an rb25 has more NM

[DRD-00F]

oh alright, if everyone is going to pick flaws in his argument...

Why? In one cycle of a 2000cc 4-stroke engine, the engine "pumps" 2L of air, in one cycle of a 1000cc 2-stroke engine, the engine "pumps" 1L of air, and in one cycle of a 13b Wankel, the engine "pumps" 1.3L of air. I don't see any problems with that.

What is your definition of 'one cycle'? It seems to change between each combustion medium. The first two are from combustion to combustion, incorporating all combustion chambers, then the third is just one combustion, incorporating one third of all combustion chambers. Why is this?

[Sydneykid]

Also i don't know where you dreamed up this 3:1 ratio between the eccentric shaft and rotors, the only gearsets in a Wankel are the ring gear on the rotor and the fixed gear on the housing. This is a 3:1 ratio and keeps the rotor rotating about its center at one third of the engine rpm, and is essential to make the rotor move in the Wankel cycle, but it does not step up the speed of the rotor to the eccentric shaft.

I have underlined the important fact, which is exactly the same as what I posted. The rest is fluff designed to confuse the reader.

A Wankel could not use any other ratio but 3:1, or else the rotor would not move in the Wankel cycle.

So now it is a step up ratio.

The angular speed of the rotors around the eccentric shaft is the only speed that matters, The angular speed of the rotors around their center being a third of the engine speed is just a part of the Wankel cycle, just as the speed of a camshaft of a piston engine is half that of the crankshaft and should not be an indicator of the engine speed.

“Angular speed”, of course, that’s far more meaningful than rpm or cpm. Do you really want to get into apex seal speed versus piston ring speed discussion? Because it’s not very supportive of your case, in fact it contradicts it completely. But I’m up for it if you are.

Why? In one cycle of a 2000cc 4-stroke engine, the engine "pumps" 2L of air, in one cycle of a 1000cc 2-stroke engine, the engine "pumps" 1L of air, and in one cycle of a 13b Wankel, the engine "pumps" 1.3L of air. I don't see any problems with that.

It depends on how narrow your definition is of a “cycle”. Plus how many chambers/cylinders you include in that cycle. The fact is in one cycle of the rotors a 13B pumps 3.9 litres if you look at all 3 sides of the 2 rotors. Obviously that doesn’t suite your argument so you ignore it. But the truth is you can’t ignore the obvious, if one chamber on the rotor has completed its cycle then so have the other 2.

What you are doing is the same as taking a 6 cylinder 2 stroke piston engine and only counting the capacity of 2 of the cylinders and ignoring the other 4. We don’t do it for piston engine why should we do it for rotaries?

I can't really think of many 1.3L 4-stroke piston engine that put out the same power as a 13b.

That’s because they are a 3.9 litre 2 stroke.

A convenient time to say, to be continued.........

Cheers

Gary

[Sydneykid]

If you can, please tell me how much fuel they use, when they are driving a car of the same size/weight. I didn't know engine capacity was rated by what size turbo they take, perhaps it is due to the better design of a Wankel.

Nope, it’s due to the Mazda lies about capacity. The turbo sizing is simply one indicator of the true extent of those lies.

Let’s get real here, if the rotary design is truly “better”,then why hasn’t every other car manufacturer changed over? In fact not even one other car manufacturer has changed over, despite many having tried.

I don't see how they have "OK" power output when they are up there with the rb26dett stock, can make 1000hp+, have been made to run 7s 1/4 miles etc. I would suggest they use 2 spark plugs for pollution reasons, and also because it is far easier to fit more spark plugs in the combustion chamber of a Wankel than in a piston engine head.

“Far easier to fit more spark plugs in the combustion chamber”? Surely you mean “due to it’s poor flame propagation it’s essential to fit more spark plugs in the combustion chamber”. Every one recognises that the number 1 problem with a rotary engine is that long, skinny combustion chamber shape, it’s a major contributor to the poor power output for capacity and high fuel consumption.

I also don't understand how they have "lousy torque output". A stock 13B-REW has 314Nm (more than a rb26dett) and a 20B-REW has 402Nm, with an impressive 380Nm at just 1800rpm.

Which is lousy for a 3.9 litre 2 stroke turbo charged engine.

Also, if we were to go by your incorrect way of measuring the angular speed of a Wankel, then a 20B would be putting out 1140Nm at 600rpm, which i wouldn't call lousy.

So now we are multiplying the torque output by the step up ratio.

They are either correctly a torquey, high revving engine or incorrectly a extremely torquey low revving engine.

And around we go. They have very low torque output for a 3. 9 litre 2 stroke engine, even allowing for 3,000 rpm of the rotors.

Modified Mazda Wankels often do lack low-down torque because they have enlargened ports, which will increase high-revving speed with the compromise of low-end power, just like a piston engine. This also increases fuel comsumption (just as in a modified piston engine) due to the overlap in intake and exhaust ports being open, which is where Wankels got their reputation for chewing through fuel.

More importantly, a completely unmodified 13B uses very similar amounts of fuel to a unmodified 3.9 litre piston engine. It most certainly doesn’t use similar amounts of fuel to an unmodified 1.3 litre piston engine.

Yes, it's continued again...............

Cheers

Gary

[Sydneykid]

Ah, no more to continued after this one..........

Most figures i've seen for the compression ratios for a Mazda Wankel are around 9-10, how is that low?

It sure as hell is low when compared to the average n/a piston engine these days, for example an F20C is 11.7 to 1, a K20A is 11.5 to 1. Realistically 9 to 1 is even low for a decent turbocharged engine these days

They respond well to turbocharging due to their free-flowing design, no valves to get in the way.

Of course we shouldn't ignore their 3.9 litre capacity, 2 stroke cycle and low compression ratio.

I don't think this needs much explaining, i doubt anyone really cares if Wankels fit well into front wheel drives, they are a performance engine, they go in performance (rear wheel drive) cars. Of course they save space, they are smaller than piston engines and they need big gearboxes because they are powerful. If a compact V6 doesn't need any bigger engine bay fit one to a r100.

Someone asked why there were no rotaries in FWD cars, I simply offered the facts of the barrel shape, heavy weight of cast iron components, low power output for a 3.9 litre engine, non cross flow lay out (inlet and exhaust on the same side) and inefficient fuel consumption as answers to that question.

Let's face it the rotary huggers like to brag about how small and light their engine is, when the fact is they aren't really that small or that light whne you include their 3.9 litre engine's requirement for radiator, oil cooler, exhaust and gearbox sizing. It would be truly nieve to look at just part of the package when all of it has to fitted into an an engine bay.

If Mazda has been lying to the world for the last 40 years then wouldn't someone intelligent person have picked it up and done something about it before you?

Plenty have tried, have you read Phil Irving's engineering paper on rotary engines? But Mazda's marketing muscle has suppressed it, rather viscously in some cases. But I like a good joust, especially when I know my point of view is correct and I have plenty of evidence to support the view.

Well hopefully thats cleared things up for everyone, Sydneykid, if you need me to explain anything further or you would like to point out where you have actually said anything correct, just tell me.

Thanks for the offer but truly there is nothing you have posted that I haven't heard before, and been able to counter argue, as I have done above.

Cheers

Gary

[Smity42]

oh alright, if everyone is going to pick flaws in his argument...

What is your definition of 'one cycle'? It seems to change between each combustion medium. The first two are from combustion to combustion, incorporating all combustion chambers, then the third is just one combustion, incorporating one third of all combustion chambers. Why is this?

I could never figure this out either...

That’s because they are a 3.9 litre 2 stroke.

I really wish you would stop saying that. Really. They are 3.9L. They are LIKE a 2 stroke. But they are not LIKE a 3.9L 2 stroke. And if you leave the LIKE out altogether its just completely wrong

Edited September 29, 2009 by Smity42

[Smity42]

Which is lousy for a 3.9 litre 2 stroke turbo charged engine.

Probably because thats not what they are...

And around we go. They have very low torque output for a 3. 9 litre 2 stroke engine, even allowing for 3,000 rpm of the rotors.

Probably because thats not what they are...

Of course we shouldn't ignore their 3.9 litre capacity, 2 stroke cycle and low compression ratio.

You mean we shouldn't ignore their 3.9L capacity, WANKEL cycle, and low(ish) compression ratio, don't you?

[mad082]

I'm not 100% convinced on this rotory only doing 3000rpm. I mean each rotor does 3 combustions per cylcle where as the piston only produces 1. So in total a 13b produces 6 combustions per cycle which is why it sounds like it is reving really high. I think revs maybe an incorrect way of comparing a piston to a rotor and cpm is more accurate. So i suppose it is the most similar to a 6 cylinder 4 stroke?

but it isn't doing 3 combustions ber rotation of the crank/e-shaft. it does 1 combustion ber rotation of the crank/e-shaft. it takes 3 rotations of the e-shaft before the rotor has combusted all sides of the rotor.

although where you said that it produces 6 combustions per cycle is where people are getting the comparrison with a 6 cylinder engine as it also produces 6 combustions per cycle.

Had to call you up on this one...an RB26DETT has significantly more torque than 314NM.

yeah. the r32 produced 353nm, the r33, 368nm and the r34 392nm

also it's all well and good to talk about what certain engines made, but if you look at the current engine used in the rx8 it is a bit lacking. 170kw @ 8200rpm and 211nm @ 5500rpm. when you consider that most of the governing bodies class the 1.3L engine as being 2.6L (that is the class the engine is put in when it won then awards) then if you compare it to a madza pistin engine of slightly smaller displacement it is a bit soft. sure it puts out more power, but has less torque. i am comparing it to the 2.5L engine from the mazda3 sp25 (not the mps because it is turbo and the rx8 isn't). the sp25 puts out less power yes (122kw vs 170kw) but it's also only making that at 6000rpm, and it makes 16nm more torque at 1500rpm less. and the biggest difference is the fuel consuption. taking info from mazda's website so it's all their own data, the rx8 uses 12.9L/100km and the 2.5L mazda3 only uses 8.6L/100km. that is 4.3L/100km less, which is a hell of a lot. even if you use the auto numbers of 158kw and 12.1L/100km it is still pretty poor. i'm sure if they tuned up the 2.5L to make 170kw it would still use less fuel

[Birds]

Bump.

[GT-R32]

Gary, you have completely ignored my post, #502. It was quite an amusing explanation of how your "3.9L 2 stroke 6 cyclinder" thing is so incredibly wrong. Instead you claim you are the winner, LOL. It also has a request of you too.

BTW everyone, we all need to ignore NM according to Gary (yet he mentions it?), as they are measured at the output shaft which is entirely irrelevant to everything. Instead we look at rotor cycles to draw relatives.

EDIT: Phil Irving loves talking about various things relative to crank degrees, something Gary ignores or doesn't understand with his 3.9L 2 stroke calls (which are wrong), eg:

EDIT2: There are plenty of FWD rotaries.

EDIT3: Comments re gearbox etc requirements are LAUGHABLE. Same as oil coolers (check out a Mazda RX7 Series 3's oil cooler). The RX8 runs a Mazda MX5 derived gearbox!

Any counter 'arguments' set out by Gary remit vital information and contain the assumption, by him, that he is correct. It's borderlline childish, but really reflects self concept. I'm still waiting for my reply to post #502.

[Parag0n]

Sydneykid, I'd like your opinion on why NOBODY has been able to get an RB series motor into the 6 second bracket or or even close to a 200mph trap speed.

While 2JZ, 13B and 20B powered cars seem to dominate the ANDRA Pro-Turbo class.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Parag0n